JOGINDER SINGH ETC. SS SIDHU vs STATE OF PB. — CRA-S/1008/2005
Case under No Acts Defined. Disposed: Contested--DISPOSED OF on 15th May 2026.
CNR: PHHC010127922005
Filing Number
CRA-S/1008/2005
Filing Date
28-May-2005
Registration No
CRA-S/1008/2005
Registration Date
28-May-2005
Judge
Mr. Justice N.S. Shekhawat
Coram
Mr. Justice N.S. Shekhawat
Bench Type
Single
Category
36.77 - CRL APPL AGNST CONV GEN MORE THAN 3 UPTO 5 YEARS ( 600 )
Judicial Branch
CRIMINAL BRANCH
Decision Date
15-May-2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--DISPOSED OF
Last updated 01-Jun-2026
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
-
1.JOGINDER SINGH ETC. SS SIDHU
Respondent(s)
-
1.STATE OF PB.
Case History
-
Case disposedDisposed
-
15-May-2026
Mr. Justice N.S. ShekhawatView PDF
The High Court of Punjab and Haryana upheld the trial court's conviction of appellants under IPC Sections 148, 307, 307/149, 326/149, and 324/149 for a 2001 attack on Kehar Singh, finding the prosecution's witness testimony and medical evidence conclusively proved the offences. However, the court reduced sentences to time already served, citing the 25-year litigation period, parties' post-conviction reconciliation, and appellants' good conduct, while maintaining the original fine amounts. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
-
10-Oct-2018
—
Mr Justice Jaswant Singh
-
01-Aug-2018
Mr. Justice Kuldip Singh
-
02-Jul-2018
—
Mr. Justice Arvind Singh Sangwan
-
07-May-2018
—
Mr. Justice Karamjit Singh
-
08-Jan-2018
—
Mr. Justice Karamjit Singh
-
11-Jul-2017
—
Mr. Justice Harinder Singh Sidhu
-
03-Jul-2017
—
Mr. Justice Harinder Singh Sidhu
-
09-Jan-2017
—
Mr. Justice Sudhir Mittal
-
04-Jul-2016
—
Mrs. Justice Rekha Mittal
-
30-May-2005
First hearing
Initial hearing scheduled
-
28-May-2005
Case filed
Registration No. CRA-S/1008/2005
The High Court of Punjab and Haryana upheld the trial court's conviction of appellants under IPC Sections 148, 307, 307/149, 326/149, and 324/149 for a 2001 attack on Kehar Singh, finding the prosecution's witness testimony and medical evidence conclusively proved the offences. However, the court reduced sentences to time already served, citing the 25-year litigation period, parties' post-conviction reconciliation, and appellants' good conduct, while maintaining the original fine amounts. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Explore other courts